OAKLAND — PG&E has won approval to keep operating the aging Diablo Canyon nuclear plant in San Luis Obispo County, a decision that one group warns could trigger higher monthly bills.
The five-member state Public Utilities Commission voted 3-0 to approve an extension of the operating license for the Diablo Canyon nuclear complex, perched near Avila Beach next to the Pacific Ocean. One commissioner was absent while another abstained.
With the extension, PG&E will be able to keep operating Diablo Canyon’s reactors until at least 2030.
Prior to the vote, the state PUC heard from numerous residents of California who urged the PUC to not approve the extension of the operating license.
Those who spoke raised issues such as the age of the plant, the integrity of the containment chambers for the nuclear reactors, and the plant’s location near what one speaker called a “latticework” of earthquake faults.
Several years ago, PG&E and the PUC determined that the Diablo Canyon Power Plant plant should be phased out due to its age and rising maintenance costs.
But after those decisions were made, a series of electricity outages that included rolling blackouts and intentional interruptions of electric service over fears of wildfires prompted state government leaders to question the wisdom of taking out of service a huge generator of electricity such as Diablo Canyon.
Alarmed by the prospect of electricity shortages in California, state leaders, including Gov. Gavin Newsom, did an about-face and launched a process to keep the old nuclear complex open.
Instead of terminating service in 2025, the plant and its reactors are poised to operate until at least 2030.
Oakland-based PG&E has estimated that the cost to keep the nuclear plant operating through 2030 could be $8.1 billion.
These costs could lead to a fresh bout of higher monthly costs for electricity services from PG&E, in the view of Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility Legal Fund, an advocacy group that is critical of the Diablo Canyon operating decision.
“When it comes to foisting these billions in costs onto ratepayers, the PUC’s preferred method seems to be, spend first, ask questions later,” said David Weisman, legislative director with Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility.
The result of all this could be an additional $11.75 a month for utility bills charged by PG&E, Weisman estimated.
Customers of San Diego Gas and Electric as well as Southern California Edison will also pay higher monthly bills because all of California would theoretically benefit from improved electric reliability.
Weisman and other critics of the PUC and PG&E believe the state regulatory agency has been too accommodating in granting PG&E the authority to raise monthly bills for customers.
“No wonder our rates are sky high,” Weisman said.
